Regardless, it's either true or it's not. Some amount of resistance training would not change the laws of physics that CICO fans love to go on about. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie according to them.

No. The entire point is that the laws of thermodynamics say absolutely nothing about what our bodies do with food. Carbohydrates are unique in that they can be used basically only for energy once consumed or they get stored as fat when there is excess. You can't use them to build muscle or repair tissue or do any other number of things that the body does with fat and protein, the only two essential macro nutrients.

Protein being used to build lean mass based on hormonal signals from resistance training should more than enough information to understand that not all calories are the same and there is no expectation that they should be.

No. The entire point is that the laws of thermodynamics say absolutely nothing about what our bodies do with food. Carbohydrates are unique in that they can be used basically only for energy once consumed or they get stored as fat when there is excess. You can't use them to build muscle or repair tissue or do any other number of things that the body does with fat and protein, the only two essential macro nutrients.

Protein being used to build lean mass based on hormonal signals from resistance training should more than enough information to understand that not all calories are the same and there is no expectation that they should be.

The laws of thermodynamics absolutely restrict what our bodies can do with food don't be ridiculous.

And yet for all the differences in carbs vs fats decades worth of studies show carbs vs fats have no meaningful difference in terms of either weight gain or loss.

So the obsession with demonizing carbs is just weird.

edit:
Some quotes from link

From a thermodynamic point of view, a calorie is a calorie. However, calories from different food sources can provide different amounts of metabolizable energy to the body and can have different effects on our energy intake and output. This doesn’t mean that the laws of thermodynamics are broken and that CICO doesn’t work, since CICO takes all the above into account.

CICO is not a diet, let alone a recent diet “fad”. It’s simply a restatement of the energy balance equation. It always has and always will apply to everyone.

CICO is not about counting calories. You can lose or gain fat without ever counting a single calorie. Calories count but you don’t have to count them.

CICO is neither “healthy” nor “unhealthy” because it’s not a diet and because it simply doesn’t make any specific dietary recommendations. Whether you make healthy dietary choices or not is up to you.

A calorie is a calorie from a thermodynamic point of view.

The quality of the foods where the calories are coming from matters for body composition, health, energy levels, etc. This doesn’t go against CICO and the laws of thermodynamics, nor does it mean that a calorie is not a calorie.

All diets work for fat loss, provided that they allow you to eat fewer calories than you expend consistently over time.

Carbs are abundant, easier to overeat, and less satiating than either fats or protein. That's why we have an obesity crisis. Most people find that, by eliminating or reducing their carb intake, they also limit their intake of the most problematic foods found in the modern American diet. It's simplifying the CICO process while getting the benefits of keto.

This will not go over well with anyone that has a financial interest in people eating carbs, including Jillian Michaels.

Intermittent Fasting faces the same type of resistance despite the overwhelming evidence that 3 meals a day isn't required in the slightest to be healthy or happy.

I would love if people stopped just lazily linking big blog posts or studies without summarizing the relevant information to this discussion in this thread.

I never said the laws of thermodynamics do not apply or "restrict" anything, just that they say nothing about what our bodies do with the food we eat. It's absolutely true. What we actually do with the food we eat is determined by man things, such as hormones, state of health, etc. etc. Now, of course, the laws of thermodynamics certainly do apply when it comes to how much energy we can potentially derive from a certain piece of food.

Carbs are abundant, easier to overeat, and less satiating than either fats or protein. That's why we have an obesity crisis. Most people find that, by eliminating or reducing their carb intake, they also limit their intake of the most problematic foods found in the modern American diet. It's simplifying the CICO process while getting the benefits of keto.

This will not go over well with anyone that has a financial interest in people eating carbs, including Jillian Michaels.

Most overeaten foods tend to be combinations of fats, carbs, and salt. The studies that measured comparative weight loss weren't only in metabolic chambers, meaning people making their own decisions with the macro breakdowns still saw similar results. I have no issue with the keto diet nor how it's design can limit the more problematic food choices. I do take issue with the whole railing against CICO and attempting to portray carbs as some completely unnecessary thing that serve no purpose.

They still say everything about the what our bodies do with the food we eat. There are literal chemical equations that describe the breakdown of carbs/fat and how the component pieces are used in the various processes throughout the body.

Now to be clear the carbs that get stored as body fat have to be converted from glucose to fatty acids; are you suggesting those fatty acids are somehow different from those derived directly from fats? Are you suggesting that a mixed macro diet is somehow deficient in providing what the body needs to build muscle/repair tissue.

;It's absolutely true. What we actually do with the food we eat is determined by man things, such as hormones, state of health, etc. etc. Now, of course, the laws of thermodynamics certainly do apply when it comes to how much energy we can potentially derive from a certain piece of food.

Instead of saying that the current science is garbage it sure would help if you provide better science to back up your claims. Oh, that's right Gary Taubes did just that when he started NuSi and how is that project coming along?

For all of you who don't know who Gary Taubes is: He basically is the God father of the low-carb movement and says basically the same things Zefah says in this thread:
- That the current nutritional science is terrible
- That the reason we have a epedemic in obesity is because of carbs and the release of insulin.

And as a result Taubes started NuSi, as he wanted to provide the world with better studies:

"The Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSI) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to reducing the individual, economic, and social costs of obesity, diabetes, and their related diseases by improving the quality of science in nutrition and obesity research."About Nusi

So they invested alot of money and put people in something called a metabolic ward where you with greater detail can observe what happens to the body during different diets etc. It's really expensice and really accurate. *Update, the metabolic ward is only in study 1

It shows that insulin levels were brought down and energy expenditure was up on the low-carb diet compared to the non-low-carb diet, although there was not a significant difference in body fat loss during the observed period.

" In this 12-month weight loss diet study, there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss. In the context of these 2 common weight loss diet approaches, neither of the 2 hypothesized predisposing factors was helpful in identifying which diet was better for whom."

So no, the claim that low-carb "works" (for some) because of not eating carbs (rather then being on a calori deficit) is not backed up by science.

Haven't really looked into this second study, but look at Table 2 that shows the diet composition. Upwards of 100+ grams of carbs (23 ~ 30% of calories) does not seem particularly low carb to me, although they are calling it "healthy low-carb."

As someone that is studying for the MCAT exam, I just want to point out that hormones is everything when it comes to how our body processes nutrients and minerals. CICO means nothing without the proper balance of insulin and glucagon (the usage or storing of energy, glucose in this case). Why do you think diabetic people have such a hard time with modulating their metabolism? The calories we consume are raw ingredients that can be put towards different functions, without hormones, we'd just shit it all out, or it will actually kill us.

As someone that is studying for the MCAT exam, I just want to point out that hormones is everything when it comes to how our body processes nutrients and minerals. CICO means nothing without the proper balance of insulin and glucagon (the usage or storing of energy, glucose in this case). Why do you think diabetic people have such a hard time with modulating their metabolism? The calories we consume are raw ingredients that can be put towards different functions, without hormones, we'd just shit it all out, or it will actually kill us.

Yes, diabetes is an issue where the body regarding the effectiveness/production of insulin. I'm not denying that hormones control the bodies specific functions.

Just stating the idea that in a body where excess calories are absorbed the body will manage them to the extent that there isn't a meaningful difference if those excess calories come from fat or carbs. Since Zefah's position seems to be that the insulin response of carbs indicates that a low carb diet will result in less fat gain in overfeeding scenarios when that doesn't seem to bear out.

Yes, diabetes is an issue where the body regarding the effectiveness/production of insulin. I'm not denying that hormones control the bodies specific functions.

Just stating the idea that in a body where excess calories are absorbed the body will manage them to the extent that there isn't a meaningful difference if those excess calories come from fat or carbs. Since Zefah's position seems to be that the insulin response of carbs indicates that a low carb diet will result in less fat gain in overfeeding scenarios when that doesn't seem to bear out.

Chronically elevated blood sugar leading to insulin resistance will cause many people to develop type 2 diabetes. Low-carb diets will help restore insulin sensitivity by reducing instances and duration of elevated blood sugar.

Chronically elevated blood sugar leading to insulin resistance will cause many people to develop type 2 diabetes. Low-carb diets will help restore insulin sensitivity by reducing instances and duration of elevated blood sugar.

Uh okay. I think I'll listen to the american diabetes association and the NIH.

American Diabetes Assocation on Sugar and Diabetes

Is diabetes caused by eating sugar?

A diet high in calories from any source (including sugar) contributes to weight gain and weight gain increases your risk for type 2 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease. Type 2 diabetes is not caused by sugar, but by genetics and lifestyle factors.

What causes type 2 diabetes?Type 2 diabetes—the most common form of diabetes—is caused by several factors, including lifestyle factors and genes.

Overweight, obesity, and physical inactivity
You are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes if you are not physically active and are overweight or obese. Extra weight sometimes causes insulin resistance and is common in people with type 2 diabetes. The location of body fat also makes a difference. Extra belly fat is linked to insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and heart and blood vessel disease. To see if your weight puts you at risk for type 2 diabetes, check out these Body Mass Index (BMI) charts.

Insulin resistance
Type 2 diabetes usually begins with insulin resistance, a condition in which muscle, liver, and fat cells do not use insulin well. As a result, your body needs more insulin to help glucose enter cells. At first, the pancreas makes more insulin to keep up with the added demand. Over time, the pancreas can’t make enough insulin, and blood glucose levels rise.

I feel like a lot of people are trying to give carbs a bad rep. There are good carbs/bad carbs, just like fats. Carbs that has decent amount of fiber and has a low GI like oats, brown rice, lentils etc will not cause an insulin spike.

I feel like a lot of people are trying to give carbs a bad rep. There are good carbs/bad carbs, just like fats. Carbs that has decent amount of fiber and has a low GI like oats, brown rice, lentils etc will not cause an insulin spike.

More fiber will certainly help soften the spike in blood sugar and following rise in insulin to accommodate, but they still have a high GI value compared to something like eggs, meat, or fish, which have a value of zero.

It's funny, because you see organizations touting low-GI foods to help combat diabetes, but at the same time posting information like that which Rokuren linked to, which fails to recognize the role of carbohydrate in the development of type 2 diabetes. If low GI is better, then it stands to reason that no GI is best, but that connection just is never made for whatever reason.

More fiber will certainly help soften the spike in blood sugar and following rise in insulin to accommodate, but they still have a high GI value compared to something like eggs, meat, or fish, which have a value of zero.

It's funny, because you see organizations touting low-GI foods to help combat diabetes, but at the same time posting information like that which Rokuren linked to, which fails to recognize the role of carbohydrate in the development of type 2 diabetes. If low GI is better, then it stands to reason that no GI is best, but that connection just is never made for whatever reason.

I mean the quotes just support what he wrote. Specifically the part about insulin resistance. No one is saying that eating a candy bar will give you diabetes, thus it is not the 'cause' of type 2 diabetes. If you consume large amounts of sugar regularly, it will put you into a group that experiences type 2 diabetes at a much higher rate than those that eat a healthier, more balanced diet. That's just common sense.

You can help reverse type 2 by fasting and/or doing keto because they both improve insulin sensitivity.

I don't know. I've been on keto for exactly a year now. I did not spend a Dollar on any products or trainers and lost just under 100 pounds. All I did was eating lots of chicken, broccoli, salads, and cheese. I started it to handle stress and it's been a great way to put that stuff under control. I don't talk much about it or read all the noise and complaining about it. I just keep my head down and do it and it's been working for me.

More fiber will certainly help soften the spike in blood sugar and following rise in insulin to accommodate, but they still have a high GI value compared to something like eggs, meat, or fish, which have a value of zero.

It's funny, because you see organizations touting low-GI foods to help combat diabetes, but at the same time posting information like that which Rokuren linked to, which fails to recognize the role of carbohydrate in the development of type 2 diabetes. If low GI is better, then it stands to reason that no GI is best, but that connection just is never made for whatever reason.

That connection is never made because it doesn't necessarily follow. It's certainly a testable hypothesis, and the review I posted earlier goes into this a bit:

In patients with T2D, LC diets may have specific benefits on glycemic parameters. Carbohydrates are the main source of glucose for metabolism, and reducing their intake may lead to a decrease in insulin requirements and an improvement in insulin sensitivity that results in reduction of postprandial hyperglycemia [15, 16]. However, most of these studies are limited by their small sample size, lack of control groups, or short follow-up periods [17]. While a preferred LC diet is composed of carbohydrates with low glycemic index (GI), the amount of these carbohydrates is still uncertain [18]. Diets containing similar amounts of simple sugars and different glycemic indexes did not show an association between high GI and the chance of developing insulin resistance among non-diabetic study subject [19].

There's just not enough data to conclude what the ideal amount of carbs, fats, and protein is optimal for patients with T2D. We can say low-carb diets are more effective on glycemic parameters, especially in the short term, maybe not so much in the long term, but how many carbs, fats, and proteins in low-carb is ideal? And are there other risks to low-carb diets? Another study cited in that review talks about how both low and high carb diets are associated with higher mortality in non-diabetics compared to a diet of 50-55% carbs. And the source of the proteins and fats in the low-carb diets made a difference too (higher mortality rates with animal-based compared to plant-based). You can't just assume that since low amounts of a thing are good, no amounts must be better.

"The dietary interventions were described previously. Briefly, the main goals were to achieve maximal differentiation in intake of fats and carbohydrates between the 2 diet groups while otherwise maintaining equal treatment intensity and an emphasis on high-quality foods and beverages. Thus, participants were instructed to reduce intake of total fat or digestible carbohydrates to 20 g/d during the first 8 weeks. Higher priorities for reduction were given to specific foods and food groups that derived their energy content primarily from fats or carbohydrates. For example, the reduction of edible oils, fatty meats, whole-fat dairy, and nuts was prioritized for the healthy low-fat group, whereas the reduction of cereals, grains, rice, starchy vegetables, and legumes was prioritized for the healthy low-carbohydrate group.

Then individuals slowly added fats or carbohydrates back to their diets in increments of 5 to 15 g/d per week until they reached the lowest level of intake they believed could be maintained indefinitely. No explicit instructions for energy (kilocalories) restriction were given. Both diet groups were instructed to (1) maximize vegetable intake; (2) minimize intake of added sugars, refined flours, and trans fats; and (3) focus on whole foods that were minimally processed, nutrient dense, and prepared at home whenever possible. Other components of the emphasis on high-quality food for both diet groups are described elsewhere."

aren't there studies mentioning that CICO (Calories in calories out/calorie counting) being more effective for losing weight? Unless somebody needs to be on it for medical reasons, it seems like a fad diet. I guess it makes counting calories easier, by coming up with rules to essentially limit certain foods to keep your calories low and hunger satiated. But there's too much good food, so nah

And now it's time for another reminder that the keto diet is a therapeutic diet, not a lifestyle. Starving your metabolism of macronutrients without very good reasons isn't a good idea. If you're on a therapeutic diet you need careful monitoring. It's not like joining WeightWatchers or giving up sweets for Lent.

aren't there studies mentioning that CICO (Calories in calories out/calorie counting) being more effective for losing weight? Unless somebody needs to be on it for medical reasons, it seems like a fad diet. I guess it makes counting calories easier, by coming up with rules to essentially limit certain foods to keep your calories low and hunger satiated. But there's too much good food, so nah

CICO isn't a diet method. It's just a statement of facts - if you burn more than you consume, you lose weight.

Keto, IMO, succeeds for many (myself included) because it alters what you consume and makes it far more likely that you get full and stop eating before you've eaten more than you'll burn in a day. On an "unrestricted" diet, I (and many others, clearly) find that extremely challenging, and don't manage to stick to it.

So in a way, you're right. If you can successfully count calories and simply make sure to eat less than you burn, you'll lose weight. But that's a big 'IF' for a lot of us.

I don't think anybody here has a problem with statements like "diet X works for me because of Y", but to imply that diet X is better then diet Y, in general, when no data exists to support that claim it becomes tiresome.

How many diets are unrestricted? Every single diet has rules, and all of them share one thing in common: If you follow the rules you will automatically cut down on typical junkfood and you will lose weight.

aren't there studies mentioning that CICO (Calories in calories out/calorie counting) being more effective for losing weight? Unless somebody needs to be on it for medical reasons, it seems like a fad diet. I guess it makes counting calories easier, by coming up with rules to essentially limit certain foods to keep your calories low and hunger satiated. But there's too much good food, so nah

I don't know. I've been on keto for exactly a year now. I did not spend a Dollar on any products or trainers and lost just under 100 pounds. All I did was eating lots of chicken, broccoli, salads, and cheese. I started it to handle stress and it's been a great way to put that stuff under control. I don't talk much about it or read all the noise and complaining about it. I just keep my head down and do it and it's been working for me.

This isn't aimed at you, but reading this thread and the comments of people on keto, I really do wonder what percent of people were actually experiencing ketosis for a majority portion of their diet, or simply removed processed carbs and started eating decent food which resulted weight loss.

This isn't aimed at you, but reading this thread and the comments of people on keto, I really do wonder what percent of people were actually experiencing ketosis for a majority portion of their diet, or simply removed processed carbs and started eating decent food which resulted weight loss.

This is a really good point. I tend to cycle on/off between keto and a diet whereby I tend to cut out all processed carbs and whilst there is certainly a difference in my workouts, energy levels and blood work, I don't think it's overly noticable. I know someone who thought he was doing keto but judging by his diet, his macro's were something along the lines of 40:50:10 (fat, protein, carbs) but he also noticed a huge improvement.

We know the mechanisms of type 2 diabetes. It's a disease in which the either cannot produce enough insulin to deal with elevated blood sugar levels or it produces what should be enough, but the body has become resistant to its effects. Either way, it's a disease of the body losing the ability to manage elevated blood sugar. We know what elevates blood sugar. It's really quite simple.

No, I don't have a link to a systematic review that concluded carbohydrate directly causes the development of type 2 diabetes, but if dramatically reducing or even ceasing carbohydrate consumption can allow someone with type 2 diabetes to deal with their condition without having to supplement insulin, then it would stand to reason that carbohydrate consumption was the culprit (or at least one of the major culprits) in their development of it.

There's just not enough data to conclude what the ideal amount of carbs, fats, and protein is optimal for patients with T2D. We can say low-carb diets are more effective on glycemic parameters, especially in the short term, maybe not so much in the long term, but how many carbs, fats, and proteins in low-carb is ideal? And are there other risks to low-carb diets? Another study cited in that review talks about how both low and high carb diets are associated with higher mortality in non-diabetics compared to a diet of 50-55% carbs. And the source of the proteins and fats in the low-carb diets made a difference too (higher mortality rates with animal-based compared to plant-based). You can't just assume that since low amounts of a thing are good, no amounts must be better.

You can't assume that if low amounts of a thing are good, then no amounts must be better in all cases, but in the case of type 2 diabetes, in which the body has lost its ability to deal with elevated blood sugar on its own and you are inflicting harm on yourself each time you do elevate blood sugar, it seems sensible to avoid such harm by not elevating blood sugar in the first place, and we know how to that very easily without starving ourselves.

We know the mechanisms of type 2 diabetes. It's a disease in which the either cannot produce enough insulin to deal with elevated blood sugar levels or it produces what should be enough, but the body has become resistant to its effects. Either way, it's a disease of the body losing the ability to manage elevated blood sugar. We know what elevates blood sugar. It's really quite simple.

No, I don't have a link to a systematic review that concluded carbohydrate directly causes the development of type 2 diabetes, but if dramatically reducing or even ceasing carbohydrate consumption can allow someone with type 2 diabetes to deal with their condition without having to supplement insulin, then it would stand to reason that carbohydrate consumption was the culprit (or at least one of the major culprits) in their development of it.

You can't assume that if low amounts of a thing are good, then no amounts must be better in all cases, but in the case of type 2 diabetes, in which the body has lost its ability to deal with elevated blood sugar on its own and you are inflicting harm on yourself each time you do elevate blood sugar, it seems sensible to avoid such harm by not elevating blood sugar in the first place, and we know how to that very easily without starving ourselves.

Obesity is the most important factor accounting for more than half of new diabetes' cases; even modest weight loss has a favorable effect in preventing the appearance of diabetes. Also, physical exercise with or without diet contributes to a healthier lifestyle, and is important for lowering risk.

Evidence is accumulating that whole-grain products are beneficial to health, and protect against chronic diseases (mainly cancer and cardiovascular diseases). In a meta-analysis including six cohort studies with 286,125 participants and 10,944 cases, a two-serving-per-day increment in whole grain intake was associated with a 21% reduction in risk for type 2 diabetes (95% CI: 13% to 28%), after adjusting for potential confounders and body mass index [5].

Frequent meat consumption has been shown to increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. This is considered true for other diseases as well. In a meta-analysis of 12 cohort studies, the estimated summary relative risk of diabetes comparing high to low intake was 1.17 for total meat (95% CI: 0.92 to 1.48), 1.21 for red meat (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.38) and 1.41 for processed meat (95% CI: 1.25 to 1.60) [8].

The exact proportion of carbohydrate inclusion in diabetic adults’ diets on a daily basis has been the subject of intense analysis. It has been hypothesized that a restricted-carbohydrate dietary pattern is beneficial for type 2 diabetes. A meta-analysis included 19 randomized studies with 306 patients to investigate the effects of two prescribed diets, a low-fat, high-carbohydrate (LFHC) diet (with a 24%/58% composition in fat/carbohydrate) and a high-fat, low-carbohydrate (HFLC) diet (with a 40%/40% composition in fat/carbohydrate). HbA1c and fasting blood glucose values were found to be similar in the two groups. In contrast, replacing fat with carbohydrate deteriorated insulin resistance, which in turn increased fasting insulin by 8% (p = 0.02) [18].

Nutrition seems to be a critical element in any prevention strategy. There is ample evidence to show that a diet with a low glycemic index and high in fiber, mainly derived from cereals, is beneficial. Concerning food groups, intake of whole grains, non-oil seed pulses, and fish can be advocated. Data collected for nuts, fruit, and vegetables, produced uncertain and inconclusive results. More research is necessary on this topic, to draw a clear picture. In contrast, there are clear results to show that meat intake should be minimized.

Finally, trans-fatty acids (TFA) are generally regarded as potentially harmful when nutritionally available in abundance, as in the diets of western industrialized countries. TFA have been analyzed for their potential to promote insulin resistance and risk to develop type 2 diabetes [23]. Although there is observational and experimental evidence from studies that high intake of TFA may increase the risk for type 2 diabetes, methodological problems and inconsistencies across the studies do not allow a definitive conclusion [23].

There's a reason the ADA and NIH descriptions for type 2 diabetes/insulin resistance are what they are and don't zero in on carbs. It's not because they're all hilariously bad at their jobs; it's because that's based on our current understanding.

You can take a look at it for yourself, and while there are obvious limitations to the study, it's pretty clear that the low-carb diet, despite not having caloric restrictions, came out ahead in just about every measured health parameter.

Here's a key paragraph from the discussion section:

The greater effect of the low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet in this study appeared to be due to the lower carbohydrate intake, because statistical significance remained after adjustment for weight loss. Because "low-glycemic" diets in previous studies typically contain from 40–60% of calories from carbohydrate, it is possible that the beneficial effect of "low-glycemic" diets could be augmented by further reduction of the absolute amount of carbohydrate, or by a reduction in caloric content.

You start with Keto. It's rather simple, you get to eat fun stuff like cheese and meat, you don't have to exercise, and you quickly start to lose pounds. Just losing those initials pounds - especially for people who have struggled with their weight their entire lives - it's an incredible boost of confidence that proves, hey, there is hope for me and dieting does work.

After x weeks of Keto (whatever you determine is right for you), you should then ease back into a normal diet that focuses on a calorie deficit so that you can start enjoying life again.

You can take a look at it for yourself, and while there are obvious limitations to the study, it's pretty clear that the low-carb diet, despite not having caloric restrictions, came out ahead in just about every measured health parameter.

My claim wasn't that low carb diets weren't potentially beneficial for those with diabetes/insulin resistance. It was that just because reducing carbs was beneficial for a specific condition it didn't mean that carbs were potentially dangerous in general, potentially the cause of such conditions, and that the ADA/NIH correctly not discussing carbs as a primary driver of diabetes didn't make "their advice fucking terrible".

You can take a look at it for yourself, and while there are obvious limitations to the study, it's pretty clear that the low-carb diet, despite not having caloric restrictions, came out ahead in just about every measured health parameter.

None of this is really refuting what I said. It makes intuitive sense that a low-carb diet would be a better treatment for T2D than a low-glycemic diet, and you can certainly make that your hypothesis, as I said. But you still have to test it, and right now there's not enough data to make a valid conclusion on the matter, especially since "better" in this context constitutes a variety of measures. The study linked here is certainly a good first step, although it is limited in the time-span covered (24 weeks). Additionally, some of the studies covered in the review found that various long-term effects were comparable between LC or HC diets. For example, when looking at the psychological health of T2D patients:

In obese adults with T2DM, both diets achieved substantial weight loss and comparable improvements in QoL, mood state and affect. These results suggest that either an LC or HC diet within a lifestyle modification programme that includes exercise training improves psychological well-being.

Sure, but people battling with overweight and diabetes don't really have the luxury of time. It ultimately comes to the individual's decision and ability to find what works for them, but waiting for the science to be settled (especially when it comes to nutrition science) basically means you're going to be waiting for an extremely long time if not forever. Doing proper controlled long-term nutrition studies with human subjects is just too cost prohibitive, which is why the more observational epidemiology rules the field despite all of the shortcomings that come with it.

Sure, but people battling with overweight and diabetes don't really have the luxury of time. It ultimately comes to the individual's decision and ability to find what works for them, but waiting for the science to be settled (especially when it comes to nutrition science) basically means you're going to be waiting for an extremely long time if not forever. Doing proper controlled long-term nutrition studies with human subjects is just too cost prohibitive, which is why the more observational epidemiology rules the field despite all of the shortcomings that come with it.

It's when people go from personal anecdotes of "hey, it worked for me!" to asserting that it just logically follows that it will work for everyone and not have any associated risks that I take issue, and what I feel responsible to fight against as a scientist. It's a matter of informing people and explaining what the limitations are of what is known so that they and their healthcare providers can make an educated decision about what to do.

You start with Keto. It's rather simple, you get to eat fun stuff like cheese and meat, you don't have to exercise, and you quickly start to lose pounds. Just losing those initials pounds - especially for people who have struggled with their weight their entire lives - it's an incredible boost of confidence that proves, hey, there is hope for me and dieting does work.

After x weeks of Keto (whatever you determine is right for you), you should then ease back into a normal diet that focuses on a calorie deficit so that you can start enjoying life again.

Keto is especially good as a gateway to this kind of diet if for no other reason than that it makes things like processed carbs and sugary snacks and desserts taste bad to you. There's no better way to avoid the temptation of a piece of cake or a heap of fries than if you're actually revolted by the idea of eating it.

I used to be a McDonald's fry fiend, but now if I nab one it is just like I'm eating a bland piece of potato, and I wonder why I even tried it.

Peer reviewed scientific studies are carefully designed to avoid the most obvious pitfalls but even then it can take decades to root out various forms of experimental bias. Anecdotal accounts make no attempt to address bias, and the most obvious types of experimental bias show up particularly severely in anecdotal accounts and self-experiments or studies where the cohort is selected after the event.

We all experience things that work for us, and it's fun to spread the good news and make the world a better place. Bacon, gluten-free, Dianetics, Gregg's vegan sausage rolls (they're delicious!), Kabbala, Pilates, macramé, craft beer, they all have their enthusiasts. Some of us even believe that arguing on the internet is a worthwhile activity.

But if somebody tries to get you to agree with them about their latest enthusiasm, ask them how they can tell whether or not they're right. Keep asking polite questions as long as they're happy to respond, and keep thinking about alternative explanations for their experiences.

Weight gain/loss is massively over simplified by CICO, which is more of a buzzword/phrase than a scientific way/methodolgy of losing weight.

Here's a great video to understanding why it's a flawed concept:
It's great for people that just want to lose weight without the details of macros and such. If someone was trying to do something more specific
Btw your avatar rules.

I agree, it's really simplified, but I also think that's why it works for many people. I think when a person starts to target specific goals, like gaining muscle while losing fat or losing that last few body fat %, macros come into play. Thanks for the video

So you are basically guessing? That's ironic considering what you said earlier about the dietary recommendations, which is based on data. Maybe not enough or conclusive data (that's another discussion) but then to speculate based on nothing is, well interesting.

Y
No. The entire point is that the laws of thermodynamics say absolutely nothing about what our bodies do with food. Carbohydrates are unique in that they can be used basically only for energy once consumed or they get stored as fat when there is excess. You can't use them to build muscle or repair tissue or do any other number of things that the body does with fat and protein, the only two essential macro nutrients.

Protein being used to build lean mass based on hormonal signals from resistance training should more than enough information to understand that not all calories are the same and there is no expectation that they should be.

So you are basically guessing? That's ironic considering what you said earlier about the dietary recommendations, which is based on data. Maybe not enough or conclusive data (that's another discussion)

You can call it a guess, but it's absolutely not based on nothing. We know that carbs raise blood sugar, that chronically elevated blood sugar leads to overproduction of insulin, which leads to insulin resistance, which leads to diabetes (a disease of being unable to manage blood sugar). We also know that reducing or removing carbs improves blood markers and often allows people to completely come off insulin.

Yes, we need more thorough studies and data points to really make a strong conclusion about some of the specifics, but this isn't just guessing based off nothing.

Honestly, the biggest danger of the keto diet is your electrolytes getting out of balance. It’s something I never considered when I started keto again to go from 180 back to 160, but discovered it’s very real when I woke up one day and my heart was beating 120 bpm for no reason, I could barely lift my arms to shampoo my hair, and my bones all felt like someone took a sledgehammer to them.

I did some research and discovered it was an electrolyte imbalance. I drank 2,000 mg of sodium (chicken broth), ate some baby spinach and a banana (obviously I can’t have them but I panicked) and took a multivitamin. The next morning it was like nothing had ever happened. I went a little too strict on avoiding sodium because it’s something I’ve done all my life when not on keto, but you absolutely cannot do it when on keto because it has a relationship with keeping other things in balance and it’s easy to urinate yourself low. Learned my lesson.

343 Industries

All diets are ultimately fads. The majority are and have been unsicentific nonsense, and the markedly effective ones are sometimes unsustainable, or in some cases literally dangerous. Even when they achieve the things they set out to, the goalposts tend to move on the purpose - weight loss versus muscle gain etc. So Keto is a fad, but aspects of it will be sustainable for some dieters - and it may be a focused too for certain types of folks to achieve certain types of goal. I'm old and this has been a non stop thing since the 1970s, with the "F-Plan" and "Atkins" and a few other temporary standouts.

The only thing that hasn't changed in that whole time is that a balanced diet with lots of fiber, protein and low in certain fats, is good for you. But even then the FDA and other organizations have adjusted earlier advice. And your goals may not match the value of a balanced diet. When I was young, an egg was basically a hand grenade full of instantly lethal cholesterol. It's also subjective relative to your body's chemistry and metabolism.

But celebrity diet and exercise mavens are some of the last people you should listen to. Jillian Michaels has an amazing body because she has a trainer and a nutritionist and may have a personal chef or at elast domestic help to make some of her own recommendations viable in a way that's absurd for non profressionals to consider, in terms of time, cost and effort.

Reminder, Robert Atkins, creator of the eponymous low carb diet, passed away after slipping on ice and suffering a severe head injury. So while low carbs sounds good, it appears it can end in fatal brain injuries and skull cracking.

If you want to lose weight and build muscle tone and maintain that, then the best advice is to be a multimillionaire in the public eye with lots of free time and a mania for exercise.